Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @01:08PM
from the umbrella-sales-up-five-percent dept.

unum15 writes "This week is Novell's Brainshare conference. They are touting the Microsoft covenant not to sue as 'good for consumers'. However, Bruce Perens decided to take this opportunity to 'rain on Novell's parade'. Perens read a statement from RMS affirming the GPLv3 would not allow companies to enter deals like this and continue to offer GPLv3 software. Perens even goes as far as to suggest this move is an exit strategy by Novell. There are also audio and pictures of the event available."

I have a feeling that he'll be commenting here soon, so "Hi Bruce!":-)

What Novell did is not illegal but it is a matter of bad faith, Perens contended. The result could doom Novell to becoming a Microsoft subsidiary, he said, because Novell does not write its own software but gets it instead from those small independents.

Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your statement to mean that Novell would effectively become a subsidiary to Microsoft without actually being bought out. Much in the same way that Microsoft "Partners" tend to exist only so long as it amuses Microsoft. When Microsoft grows tired of them, they do something that completely undermines the trust and business model of those partners. (See: PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)

It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick, but there you go. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Novell, it was nice knowing you.:-/

It's typical modern American capitalism. Short term gains don't necessarily mean long term pains... at least not for the CEO involved. Take the million+ dollar bonus, cash out stock options, run/quit/get fired, and who cares if the company dies later.

What amazes me is the fact that nothing in the current draft of the GPLv3 forbids novell-microsoft deal. This means they are intending to insert something that doesn't exist or are actualy trying to keep people on microsoft's products. I'm willing to bet that if pushed, this will be shown in court and the GPLv3 will end up destroying/fracturing yet another portion of the FOSS comunity.

I guess to some, it doesn't matter as long as they get their 15 minutes of fame!

The new GPL3 provision says that if you arrange to protect any party from patents regarding the software, that protection has to apply to everyone. We might have the final language to see on Saturday, for the FSF annual meeting, I've not been told but that's what I'd guess.

Forget about GPL3 introducing major forks. There will be a few small spats. The license is in the interest of the Open Source developers who would use it, and that's all of the developers who want a share-and-share-alike form of licensing rather than an outright gift as in BSD. The folks who mainly would be opposed to it are those who want to benefit without sharing, and to say the community doesn't need them would be an understatement.

If you believed that GPL3 would prohibit Linux from being used in a system with DRM, you can stop now. There are four places where you can put DRM in a system with a GPL3 kernel and have it work well and not have to give away your keys: in hardware as in a chip that mediates access to the display or audio output, in a coprocessor as with the separate chip that runs the GSM stack in cell phones, in a kernel under the kernel as with Microsoft's "nib", and in a user mode program. Those are also the best places to put the DRM from a technical standpoint. I am currently working on a paper on this, maybe I'll have it out tomorrow evening.

So, lets get clear on this to make sure I understand it correctly. You and the GPLv3 are perfectly ok with Tivo implementing DRM in firmware and hardware that stops the player from booting if certain controlled measures aren't present?

No, it wouldn't work this way. In a compliant system, you'd be able to change the kernel as you liked, the system would still boot, but the DRM would still decrypt and play media correctly without offering access to the unencrypted data stream. The key is that the GPL3 DRM terms mean that the DRM must not lock down the GPL program, and the DRM functionality of playing the media must keep working if you change the GPL program. GPL3 does not say that you have to be able to break the DRM, it only restricts what the DRM can break.

This isn't going to keep users away from the program. Users don't generally care about licensing as long as they have a clear right to run the program, and they do. Look at the nasty EULAs they sign from MS, much worse than ours. It may keep certain developers away, but historically the GPL share-and-share-alike terms have helped, rather than hurt, to build a large developer community.

No, it wouldn't work this way. In a compliant system, you'd be able to change the kernel as you liked, the system would still boot, but the DRM would still decrypt and play media correctly without offering access to the unencrypted data stream. The key is that the GPL3 DRM terms mean that the DRM must not lock down the GPL program, and the DRM functionality of playing the media must keep working if you change the GPL program. GPL3 does not say that you have to be able to break the DRM, it only restricts wh

Hey guys, what's taking so long? Go ahead and mod this up to +5 Interesting. This is Bruce Perens speaking, you know.

When the story is about me and my comments get lost in the noise, I really get to think that Slashdot might not value information right from the horse's mouth as much as that from the other end of the horse:-)

Question: is it not possible to put a clause in the GPL v3 to make tis quite clear? Something along the lines of "Any funny tricks to circumvent the SPIRIT of the GPL will make it automatically void and the offending entity will be sued for copyright infringement"

Of course. Here's the legal language you're asking for: "Do what I mean, not what I say.":-)

So, this illustrates the fundamental problem in law. Law does not require ethical behavior. This is because there is no canonical definition of ethical

It would only prohibit them from conveying something they owned a right to this way. When you download a distro, you have to pass the rights they gave you along with the right you have to the code/software with it. The novell-microsoft deal doesn't count unless the covers pattented work is submited by Novell. The microsoft-novell deal doesn't give novell the rights that microsoft owns. Otherwise, you are giving all the rights you hold over it.

Simple, if you don't want to answer the other person's point, simply concoct a straw-man argument to respond to. I'm sure he understood the comment quite clearly and probably accepted the situation in the back of his mind. I expect this is the role he's sized up for his company, to be Microsoft's "loyal opposition." I wonder, to what extent, Microsoft leaned on Novell by suggesting a list of possible infringing software and let Novell do the math?

There's almost nothing Microsoft has that Novell didn't have first other than media stuff. Microsoft's stuff of importance like file sharing, word processors, file servers.. is all pale imitation of stuff Novell was doing 10 years sooner. If Novell truly wanted to hurt Microsoft, they'd use their knowladge of Windows internals to build a free adapter for Microsoft computers to some new OSS variant of Novell's Groupwise products. That would wipe Microsoft out if we could stop having to share to the "lowest

Hi. What I meant was that Novell's Linux business is going to be hurt by what they've done, long term, because technical people won't be recommending them. And their Linux business has not reached the point of viability anyway, so I don't see how they plan to go forward rather than take as much money as possible before getting out of the business. Look at the customers they've listed of late (only four) and then ask them why they bought. The HSBC guy called the MS agreement FUD in the press, one of the others told me privately they'd rather be rid of Microsoft.

Will MS buy them? MS tends to work through proxies these days. Is 330 Million a good starting investment? Sure.

I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft. Statements like Perens' nail the lid on the coffin for me. Novell had such potential with their government contracts, name recognition, and experience. But their management's been hurting the company for years. It's all downhill now.

I've heard about how linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter. But I'm really skeptical.

If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?

Right now Novell has a complete OS and it's licensed entirely under GPL v2 and other open licenses. That will continue to be true after the FSF finally finishes writing the holy scripture, err, GPL v3. The odds that Novell would be unable to keep up after a required fork are pretty high. Every major OSS app has been funded and managed, or written in it's entirety, by a private enterprise.

linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter.

Yes it will. As pieces outside of the kernel migrate to GPLv3 Novell will hit a roadblock having to rely on GPLv2 branches. Someone might still maintain those, but maybe not, making that much more work for Novell. Novell will still have to share its code with the community, but the community won't have to share their code with Novell. Which makes me happy a little.

A kernel is about 30 megs or so out of the several hundred megs to several gigs you'll find in any Linux distro. If the collection of core utilities *nix depends on is GPLv3, the options Novell have are writing reverse-engineered versions of those utilities or stop selling products based on them.

People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse [slashdot.org] in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company. They don't care about Free Software, they are not into it for the ideals. Back them they saw an opportunity to make money off free software, so they invested, made some money but, in the end, they would dump everything in a heartbeat and partner with Microsoft if it is more profitable for them.

And that's the beauty of Free Software. They can dump Linux and Free Software all they want, if they do, as fast as it takes, a fork for all projects that they are personally involved (Suse, Gnome, Mono, from the top of my head) will pop up and continue almost as nothing has happened.

And I really wish that happens. I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. The recent created Gnome Control Panel is a copy of Windows Control Panel, except that it is slow and cluttered like Win 3.11 Program Manager). That, and things like bundling Mono, pfff. But that's another subject, that doesn't belong here.

Just a heads up. Novell has done nothing to deserve your trust. Don't look surprised when they finally misbehave.

Here [newsforge.com] is a possible answer, in an article from 2003, the time of the announcement of the buyout:

Investors seem to think Novell (NOVL) was wise to buy SuSE. Novell stock spiked to $8.80 soon after the purchase announcement hit the wires, and closed the day at $7.33, up 21.16% from the previous day's $6.05 close.

Not that different than when AOL and Time Warner merged. Company makes a risky move, investors like, shares go up, someone sells and profits, company sinks, board changes, company makes a risky

I agree completely. Their first interst is making money. However, they've built their brand in recent years as being friendly to open-source developers. I would like to see their reputation as an "open-source friendly" company evaporate as a result of this deal. I would like to see projects notify Novell to stop shipping their code in the Novell distro - because they're violating GPLv3. I don't want to other vendors to cave to Microsoft. Part of it is ignorance and people confuse GPL with "giving it

I have to disagree with ya there. Sure, they are a commercial company and their goal is to make money. Big Surprise! However, in this effort, they have contributed a substantial amount of code to the kernel, gnome, and numerous other projects. I'm as uneasy about a deal with MS as anyone, but to start bashing them because they are a commercial company and they contribute to Linux is a bit short sighted.

I don't like the way they are handling Gnome

If you do not like, what they have done with gnome, then you can contribute or use KDE, XFCE, twm, etc.

appease to Windows "converted" users

Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

bundling Mono, pfff

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on.NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.

Novell may not be my favorite Linux company, but you can't discount the contribution because of unfounded "fears" about "some day they will ruin linux". If they walked away today, I would at least say "Thank you for all that you had contributed". Without companies like, IBM, Novell, RedHat, Canonical and others, linux would still be where it was at 5-6 years ago. Today it is a viable alternative to MS Windows for the desktop, and is replacing Solaris, AIX and HP-UX in record numbers.

Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

One of my pet peeves, regardless of distro, application, whatever, is when a decision is made to ease the transition of "foreign" users in detriment of the already faithfu

Mono, believe it or not, is actually being used (especially at Novell) to create applications in C# *designed to run on Linux* (see Beagle, which I'm fairly certain is now included in Novell's Linux distributions).

While I think.NET and Mono are annoying (I hate all memory-managed languages, though, so that's not saying much), I see nothing to "pff" at including a dependancy for increasingly-common applications.

People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company.

It's all about Mono.

While C# certainly doesn't have nearly the installed code base that Java has, ".NET" is pulling even with [and might even have surpassed] "J2EE":

As much as everybody loves to hate the guy, Ballmer was 100% correct when he said that it's all about "developers, developers, developers", and if you think ".NET" isn't the hottest thing in the programming market right now, then, well, you've been asleep at the wheel for the last five years.

Mono is the ace up Novell's sleeve; with the Microsoft agreement, they are assured that they've got something that Red Hat doesn't have, that Oracle won't have [with the upcoming "Oracle" Linux], and that even IBM or Sun wouldn't have, if they were to roll their own Linuxes, which is to say: An ironclad guarantee that their flavor of Linux will play nice with.NET.

With so much FUD in the air, I am glad we get our own reports like this, with audio, so we can reach our own conclusions [... Anonymous:] The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.

The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.

Yeah, Microsoft is evil, Novell stupid, etc. etc., yadda yadda, but is anything Novell offers actually released under GPL3? Linus has stated he intends to keep the Linux under GPL2. If Novell isn't offering anything released under GPL3, why should they care?

Because all the GNU tools that Linux depends upon (most significantly the entire toolchain they rely on to build the software) _will_ be GPL3 when GPL3 comes out. This means they either have to spend money to maintain the old GPL2 tools themselves or find alternates. No alternative currently exists for gcc which is free software.

I find it hard to believe there are no other OSS/free C/C++ compilers. Yes, I know GCC does more than C/C++, but what more would you need to build the kernel and userland? If the hammer came down, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to pick up some other compiler and put the work into it to get it to fit in the spot GCC left behind. I mean, GCC's an impressive piece of software, sure, but it's not like you couldn't get another compiler if you had to.

Not necessarily - RMS does not run gcc anymore and has clashed with the developers before by attempting counterproductive political instead of technical moves. The new licence is still a draft anyway, and I find the sugestion to move to it before it is finalised because some great American Hero in his own mind says so to be disgusting. Finish the licence, and then convince developers to move to it on merit. I also suggest direct lobbying against silly use IP laws is a better action other than making it i

If Linus stays with GPLv2, and Sun goes with GPLv3 on Solaris, I'm dropping Linux like a hot potato.

I've worked with GPL'd code since the early 90's, have made contributions to the kernel (and other projects). My problem is that I'm currently in an area where Software Patents (and patent trolls) are a serious concern.

I know I'm not the only one either.

Sun could make serious inroads in a lot of places if they went the GPLv3 route with Solaris. And I'd be delighted to help get them there ASAP.

That will put them at a significant competitive disadvantage to the likes of RedHat. They will be saddled with maintaining old versions of very complex software (like the entire gcc toolchain, plus binutils and the like) - whereas companies who are not pariahs will just continue using the latest GPLv3 versions of this software. Novell's costs will therefore be significantly higher since they can no longer benefit from the work of the actual package maintainers themselves.

Why is it that people think Novel will be the only ones maintianing a fork? It sounds reasonable to belive that other companies like Tivo and such would be just as interested.So, lets say we have a GPLv2 comercial fork. Is that bad? I mean competition is good right?

This doesn't even goto mention that the GPLv3 doesn't ocme close as it is currently writen to doing this. Novell has nothing to worry about useing the GPLv3 software. Likewise the FSF and anyone who uses the GPLv3 have more to worry about the GPL

I'm pretty sure that FSF's software is distributed under the "GPL v2 or later". Which means that any commercial fork would have to keep using "GPL v2 or later". FSF would then be free to take any changes to the commercial fork, apply them to the FSF version and then release it under the GPL v3.

I mean competition is good right?

Especially when your competition can take your changes and incorporate them into their version, but not the other way aro

Personally as I see it the developer chooses a licence to avoid the hassle of working out what rights they hand out - but it is THEIR work and does not belong to whatever faction has started playing games in the FSF recently.

The copyrights to the gcc toolchain belong to the FSF -- they ARE the owners of the work! It has long been a condition to work on the official fork: if you want your patches to go everywhere, you assign copyright. Developers that don't like that are free to make their own forks (as with Emacs vs. XEmacs), but FSF has had enough developers who are OK with it to now have the definitive version of gcc.

And if you think GPLv3 is a recent "game" from a "faction" in the FSF, you haven't been paying attention for about 20 years. FSF has ALWAYS been about copyleft. They predate the OSS movement by a decade and Usenet is littered with the ashes of long flamewars about the GPL license.

"Why am I starting to get the feeling"Because you're not looking close enough?

Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive. Most anyone who's made an informed decision to use the GPLv2 is likely to move as v3 is merely a continuation of the exact same policy, updated to handle new issues.

The linux kernel is an exception; not particularly surprising as Linus has never been particularly aligned with the FSF ideas (witness the former choice of a non-free versioning system...).

Why am I starting to get the feeling that outside of the FSF no one is going to adopt v3?

It's far more than FSF, it is everyone who has seriously considered the GPL and found that it is appropriate for their needs. For me, I chose GPL because I want to retain the option to get paid for closed-source forks of my work. (No takers yet.:) )

All it takes is ONE GPL "V3 or later" userland program to be essential and the whole house of cards falls down. C++ is gaining new language features soon. Samba will nee

The conclusion of the meeting? Nothing good is coming from this deal between Microsoft and Novell.

My understanding is that, as part of the deal, Microsoft is actually distributing SuSE Linux.

Doesn't this mean that they themselves are distributing the software they might be claiming patents on? And doesn't that mean that, for practical purposes, have given up their right to assert the patents against any GPL'ed software that is part of SuSE Linux?

No - you don't "give up the right to assert a patent" through inaction. You are thinking of trademark where if you don't vigorously defend your trademark, you can and often will loose it.

A patent can only become unenforceable by either reexamination from the USPTO, federal court decision, or definitive action from the patent holder itself (like a covenant not to enforce or a donation to a third party, etc).

You can hold a patent and do nothing with it for years, then all of a sudden decide to enforce it.

It looks like Microsoft therefore has granted transferable rights to all applicable intellectual property to the recipients of the software.

i think they acknowledge that the recipients of the software from MS and Novell have rights to it. the question is if MS distributing SuSE has impact on MS's claims against people using a version of Linux that they haven't indemnified

As far as I understand, Novell hasn't licenced or acknowledged any Microsoft patent regarding Linux. It was just an agreement not to sue. Novell still doesn't have any explicit right to distribute infringing code. Strictly speaking, if Novell were aware of a patent, they wouldn't be legally permitted to distribute under the patent terms. However, Microsoft would be powerless to stop them through legal means.

The current GPL3 draft doesn't seem to prevent this type of agreement.

It doesn't matter. They already reversed themselves on their most important pledge and that is to leverage their patents against anybody who sues an open source project for patent violation.

They will no longer come to the defense of open source projects if MS sues them and that's what MS was after all along. MS has already gotten the same kind of deal from Sun. If they can get IBM they will be done.

GPL =/= do whatever you like. The GPL is actually a restrictive licensing agreement. It governs how you use the product, how you can realease something based on that product, what you can incorporate that product into, and in some cases how you release what you create with that product. People confuse GPL == Free as in beer == Do as you will. GPL has built in protections to ensure that anything derived from the GPL is also encumbered the same way as the GPL. Note that *I like the restrictions* GPL puts

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute. With GPL, as long as you grant the same rights when you distribute, you can. Now tell me again, how GPL restricts any freedom? How can a license to restrict a freedom that you didn't have in the first place?

As a license, the GPL uses copyright law so that it can be enforced. Copyright law allows authors who publish software under the GPL to enforce their rights against companies that steal their code by incorporating the code into products or derived works without making the source available, publishing their patches, etc. You own the copyright on your work unless you assign it to someone else. The GPL is a tool that allows you to license your work for use by other parties. I think the notion of the GPL be

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

Well said.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute.

A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the
GPL [gnu.org] disagrees with that:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that
doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

I'm a big fan of the GPL myself, but let's try not to sacrifice accuracy to zealotry here.

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

That's semantics. GPL doesn't restrict anything that you would be able to do with standard copyright law. Copyright law says you can't do A, B, C, D and E. GPL says you can now do A, B, C. How is that restricting?

Notice, I'm not denying GPL has more conditions than BSD or Public Domain. All I'm saying is that has one goal, to make sure any software and all its derivatives under that license will be able to be freely run, studied, derived and distributed. They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake. If they could simply say that, in a clear and unambiguously way, such confusions would never exist in the first place. But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.

Yes, of course. The law is semantics. Programming is semantics. Semantics are important.

How is that restricting?

It's restricting because the concept of restriction is an analogue value, and it's possible for something to be more restrictive than one thing, and at the same time less so than some other thing. For example, GPLv2 is less restrictive that a Microsoft EULA, but more so than the BSD licence. As you point out yourself.

I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?

It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability. Total restriction means I have to seek permission in order to breathe. Clearly neither extreme is desirable.

And just because some tossers are making the argument that "less than perfect freedom" implies "absolute restriction", that doesn't mean we should play into their hands by arguing the opposite extreme whe

My whole point is that "restriction" is NOT the opposite of "freedom". "Oppression" is the opposite of "freedom", and to be free of oppression would-be oppressors -- which includes you and me -- must be restricted.

I should have said "I am not free to own slaves. Am I less free because of this, or is everyone more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves."

Sorry, I was being a little loose with my English. This is what I mean, by example:

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

Then you are distributing the binary inside the router. That is distribution. You can modify it without releasing the sources as long as you only use it in-house. Microsoft could run Linksys Routers with a heavily modified Linux firmware and would not be required to release the source as long as they don't sell/distribute it.

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

No, you're in violation of copyright, and you can't invoke the GPL as a defense. If the product was released under standard copyright without the GPL, you'd still be in violation and you wouldn't have the option to comply by releasing your code.

Freedom always has "restrictive" like the GPL for software, the Bill of Rights for political rights. It would be foolish to argue that we aren't free politically because there are restrictions on, say, whether the government can force us to quarter soldiers

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. The Bill of Rights restricts the government, not me. The Bill of Rights prevents the [federal] government from passing laws on certain things. The GPL, on the other hand, most certainly does restrict the ind

I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy.

Assuming you're American (and my most humble apologies if you aren't), you've been brought up to believe that you have freedom, which is why I think you're making this statement. Anarchy is freedom, what you have is certain freedoms tempered by rules. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - one man's freedom is another man's oppression, so rules are necessary for the f

and exactly what are "deals like this"? An agreement between two companies not to sue each other's customers -- at least that's what has been made public so far. Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse? Since the deal, so far as I know, does not inhibit or put additional restrictions on Linux, I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?

In his speech Peren compares the deal to a protection racket. Novell has hired MS(yes I know the money goes the other way around) to be their goon. MS is going around telling people, "pay Novell or something bad may happen to you".

Copyright law is the mechanism by which GPL works, but SOFTWARE PATENTS are the real issue here, as Bruce explains very well in his talk.

The "protection racket" is about the patents that MS implies Linux infringes on. And as Bruce points out, pretty much any non-trivial software probably infringes on someone else's software patents.

That's because software patents in the USA have been doled out too easily. They are absurd.

What's worse, Bruce explains, there is actually a _penalty_ for trying to figure out if your own software infringes. Because if you can be shown to have infringed on a patent you actually know about, the damages are tripled.

Small companies and individual software developers are at the biggest risk. Because big companies have portfolios of patents that they routinely cross-license, thereby protecting themselves from each other. The small guys are locked out. And of course, little guys don't have the money to maintain a legal defense even when they are totally in the right, forcing them to settle.

Of course not. Well, someone might, but no one here. First of all, perhaps 1/10% of all slashdotters understand the ramifications of GPLV2, let alone V3. Second, mentioning that Microsoft will be involved with Linux in some way creates such overpowering waves of cognitive dissonance in most slashdotter's minds that all reason is overwhelmed and the mind is reduced to repeating a mantra of "bad...bad...bad..."

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL
program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that
could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.

corect nbut used entirly wrong in supporting the GPLv3 novell problem. You can only give rights you have

The Two licenses are incompatible and will creat some expensive legal challenges.

The two licenses are incompatible, but that will not create problems for any projects except the Linux kernel. Most GPL code out there is licensed under "V2 or later", meaning with each additional version of the GPL released by the FSF the code can automatically be released under the new license.

When GPLv3 is ready, the FSF is going to fork all of the code they have copyright to and make the fork "V3 or later". Since "V3 or l

The Linux kernel is a special case. Parts of the code are "V2 only" and parts are "V2 or later". This combination is OK. However, it would essentially be impossible to move the Linux kernel to "V3 only" or "V3 and later" because EVERY contributor with "V2 only" code in the kernel must agree to this change, and several of them have died and their estates own the copyright on their contributions.

Not disagreeing as such, but you could probably find some substantial portions of the code where the ownership w

My copy of GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are notcovered by this License; they are outside its scope." So my reading would have been that patent infringement lawsuits were not covered. As for whether Novell can buy a license which protects their customers from infringement lawsuits, that's one for the lawyers.

My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights. In fact, it says that the people who get a copy from you get their license to distribute from

mmm... my mistake. I got that from Stallman's address to the 5th international GPLv3 conference [fsfeurope.org]. Sadly, he's talking about phraseology already in the GPLv3 draft at the time of the Novell-MS announcement, and not how v2 works as I had originally thought. So my bad.

On the other hand, it's not a million miles away from this:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to sur

Complete freedom is impossible. If you have free speech, I can't have the freedom to duct-tape your mouth closed and break your typing fingers just because I don't like what you're saying.

Just like the US Constitution, as amended, enshrines some rights (like freedom of speech) and bars others (arbitrarily duct-taping mouths shut), the GPL enshrines some rights and not others. The freedoms the FSF are interested in are the freedoms to use and modify software, and redistribute as you like. If you receiv

Why is the parent modded flamebait? This seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constructors of the US Constitution drafted the first amendment, I'm sure that yelling "fire!" maliciously in a crowded public building wasn't what they had in mind. Instead, it's a specific type of freedom which has a few limitations. However, these limitations are important to preserve the function and spirit of said rights. The same goes for the GPL.

By releasing code under the GPL, I'm saying effectively, "you can have my code for free, and even change whatever you want, provided you don't restrict anyone else from doing the same." The BSD license allows the author to say, "use whatever you like, and you can close up my source code and not share with anybody if you want to." If that license is more attractive to you, than by all means, release your code under the BSD license instead of GPL. But like me, many people want the guarantee of the continuing freedom of the code they release. For those of us who feel that way, the GPL is exactly the right license.

Hey, the "Big Mike" analogy is funny and everything, buts it's sad to see someone of Bruce's caliber and stature stooping to antics

Er, no. Bruce's fecal matter smells just as bad as the next human being's; of this I am entirely certain. Take him down off that huge marble pedestal in your mind. Once you start perceiving him as just another pathologically flawed human being like the rest of us, you then cease to be so amazed when he behaves accordingly.

(And of course, some companies try to get away with using the software withouth regard for the terms of the GPL, but that's another matter.)

You mean distributing the software. The GPL's terms don't govern use.

It is explicitly and methodically being written to be as anti-business as possible.

Multiple assertions without any supporting evidence... Can you provide any foundation for your argument, at all? It seems to me that Linus one of the few voices really opposed to the changes in the third revision of t